Good idea. Besides this, I think we should make the flags a bit less prominent visually. Right now, they’re the first thing somebody notices in every article, and they kind of put people off because they’re so many. Once we get the content in good shape and there aren't so many issues, we could work on making them more prominent...
Lea Verou
W3C developer relations
http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou
On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:13, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, folks-
>
> We've had many people report that they are discouraged, intimidated, and confused by the current set of flags.
>
> Julee and I discussed this when I was giving her the rundown of the recent Seattle Doc Sprint, and we think perhaps we should remove most of the flags.
>
> We propose the following 3 flags (for now):
> 1) Unconfirmed Imported Content: for MSDN or other automated content
>
> 2) Needs Review: general purpose, for people who want to review of the content they've changed, or people who want to flag something as odd
>
> 3) Needs Examples: For pages where the examples aren't up to snuff, or no examples exist. (In writing this email, it occurs to me that we could also add flags for each of the WPW tasks, but I haven't thought deeply about it.)
>
> I propose that we discuss the flags on this thread for the next week, then next week, we change the templates to remove most of the flags.
>
> Changes to the visible style will be done later.
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>